Mumbai Court September 2001 Judgments

Ramesh Ratilal Tanna Vs. Gautam Jayantilal Nagarwala

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002BomCR(Cri)545; 2002(2)MhLj301

R.K. Batta, J.1. The facts giving rise in the two applications are same except for the amount of the cheque which in Criminal Application No. 561 of 1998 is Rs. 10,000/- and. in case of Criminal Application No. 562 of 1998 is Rs. 14,000/-. Accordingly, the two applications were heard together and it is proposed to dispose of the same by common judgment.2. The non-applicant had filed a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. After examining the complainant, the Magistrate issued process on 10-6-1997. The present applicant filed an application on 9-12-1997 for discharge and the Magistrate vide order dated 10-2-1998 dismissed the said application for discharge. The applicant, namely the accused, has approached this Court for quashing the prosecution as well as issuance of process under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.3. Learned Advocate for the applicant argued before me that on the face ...

Ashok Maharu Thakare and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2002(3)ALLMR909; 2002(3)MhLj358

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith.2. The petitioners challenge the order dated 30th July, 2001 passed by the respondent No. 5 Divisional Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Dairy), Nashik Division, Nashik whereby an administrator has been appointed for the management of the respondent No. 8.3. The facts in brief, relevant for the decision are that the last elections for the managing committee of the respondent No. 8 were held in the year, 1994 and the petitioners were elected as members of the managing committee and they assumed their office on 12th April, 1994. The term of the elected committee of the respondent No. 8 was to expire on 11th April, 1999. Prior to the expiry of the said term, the petitioners by letter dated 15th February, 1999 brought the said fact to the notice of the respondent No. 5 herein so that the necessary steps be taken for holding fresh elections for...

Javid Ghorashian Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2002Bom1; 2002(2)BomCR688; (2001)4BOMLR906; 2001(4)MhLj814

J.G. Chitre, J. 1. Taking exception to the Judgment and Order dated 20th April, 2001 passed by the Family Court, Pune in D. No. 173/2000, the appellant has reiterated his prayer for adopting a child aged about 1-1/2 year old named 'Vaishnavi' who is presently put in Kusumbai Motichand Manila Seva Gram, Pune (K. M. Manila Sevagram, quoted for short) 25/20, Karve Road, Pune 411 004.2. Few facts need to be mentioned for the purpose of understanding the matter in better way. A minor female child was found deserted and abandoned by Bhusaval Taluka Police Station staff members on 20th December, 1999 at Bhusaval. The said child was admitted initially in Civil Hospital, Jalgaon as per the orders of Juvenile Welfare Board, Jalgaon as at that time the said child was one day old. Subsequently, the said child was admitted to the care and custody of K. M. Manila Seva Gram, Pune as per the order dated 20.12.99. No person claimed to be the parent or relative of the said minor child nor anybody ever v...

Saroj Iyer and anr. Vs. Maharashtra Medical of Indian Medicine, Bombay ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR2002Bom97; 2002(3)BomCR416; (2002)1BOMLR504; 2002(1)MhLj737

1. These two writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment as common issues are involved therein and principal prayer is identical for issuance of direction to the Maharashtra Medical Council of Indian Medicines from preventing the members of the public in general and the petitioners in particular from attending the enquiries held under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Medical Council Act, 1965. 2. For the sake of convenience we intend to refer to the facts of writ petition No. 493 of 1990. The first petitioner in this writ petition is a journalist employed in the Times of India and she has filed the petition in her capacity as Journalist as well as in public interest. The second petitioner Medico Friends Circle is a registered society and trust. The first respondent is the Maharashtra Medical Council of Indian Medicine, statutory body established under Section 3 of Maharashtra Medical Council Act, 1965 (for short 'Act of 1965') and the second respon...

M/S Mardia Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Adj.),

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. By Stay Order No. C-II2564/WZN/2000 dt. 28.7.2000 the applicants were directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1.40 lakhs and report compliance on 10.8.2000 and application for modification was field. It was disposed of by the order No.C-I/1961/WZB/2001 dt. 30.7.2001 extending time for predeposit by three weeks from the receipt of the order on the modification application. Compliance was to be reported on 31.7.2001.When the matter was listed for hearing on 31.7.2001 further time was granted and listed today for reporting compliance. Today however there is no proof of compliance of stay order. Hence appeal is dismissed for non compliance with the statutory requirement of Section 129E of the Customs Act....

M/S Iqbal Synthetics P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In this case the adjudicating authority has confirmed duty demand of Rs.39,79,919/- holding that DTA sales of goods by the application herein did not fall within purview of paragraph 9.9(b) and paragraph 9.20 of the Exim Policy during the relevant period since the applicant did not actually export any goods but only carried out deemed export while under provision of Exim Policy is DTA sales upto 50% of the FOB value of export is permissible. In other words the Commissioner had held that DTA sales is not permissible because it is only actual export which falls within the scope of FOB value of exports, and since the applicants did not carry out any export they were not entitled to sell anything in the Domestic Tariff Area. The Ld. Counsel Shri S.Suriyanarayanan takes us through the relevant provisions of policy of substantiate his contention that since it is only with effect from 1.4.2000 that the expression "physical exports" has been used even deemed exports would come within the m...

Mafatlal Industries Ltd. and A.V. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The demanded of over Rs. 3 crores confirmed against the applicant herein arises on account of inclusion of Post Spindle Stage cost such as cost of doubling and administrative expenses, depreciation etc. in the assessable value of the cotton yarn manufactured by the applicants.At the outset attention of the Bench is drawn to stay order No.C/1598/WZB/2001 dt. 14.6.2001 passed in the case of the same assessee wherein the predeposit requirement was waived on the ground that the applicant was declared to be a Sick Company in terms of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. On the same basis we dispense with the predeposit of duty and penalty in this case also and fix this appeal for hearing on 22.11.2001.2. Predeposit of penalty imposed on Shri A.V. Suryanarayan is also waived and his appeal is also fixed for hearing along with the company appeal on 22.11.2001....

M/S Uni Deritend Ltd. Vs. Comm. Customs, Nhava Sheva

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. On hearing both side son the application for early hearing and for stay of operation of the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Shiva the applications are allowed.2. The issue involved is that at what stage was a cast article becomes a part of machinery, etc. Certain samples were shown to me with the contention that the contested goods had not undergone any machining at all. The sample of such cast articles after such machining was done by the buyer were also shown to me. Having no technical expertise I am unable to determine whether the contested goods had not undergone such machining. It is therefore appropriate that a departmental expert be present at the time of hearing. Customs department have number of expert appraisers including in metallurgical and mechanical engineering. It was suggested to Shri B.B. Sarkar appearing for the Revenue that assistance of such expert may be obtained from Customs Houses. He agree but submits that it could take some time and that he may...

Shri Bageshwari S.S.K. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. The above appeal has been filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner who has rejected the request for condonation of delay in filing declaration under Rule 57T of the Central Excise Rule, beyond the period of three months, for capital goods received by the appellants. We have heard both sides and carefully perused the relevant Rules. In the face of the clear language of the rule, which provide that the maximum period for which the Assistant Commissioner is empowered to condone the delay is three months, we see no infirmity in the impugned order and accordingly uphold the same and reject the appeal. We see that the language of Rule 57T is mandatory because of the sue of expression "Shall" occurring in clause (1) of Rule 57T....

Beri Mercurio Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. In this case the applicants imported goods declared by them as Copper Cathodes which on detailed examination by experts were found to be copper sheet, since copper sheets have smooth surface (goods in question had smoothness) while the Copper Cathodes always have an uneven surface. On this basis differential duty demand of Rs. 3,53,096/- has been confirmed and a penalty of RS. 25,000/- has been imposed by the adjudicating authority.2. In spite of notice none appears for the importers. Hence we have heard the Ld. DR and perusal the records.3. We find that prima facie order does not call for any interference at this state, since the finding based upon the expert evidence and further an earlier examination report which also held that the goods are copper sheets was accepted by the import. In these circumstances we direct predeposit of the entire duty amount within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order and on such deposit predeposit of penalty shall stand waived and recovery t...